From: Nicolas Pennequin <nicolas.pennequin_at_free.fr>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:02:30 +0200

Rob Purchase a écrit :
> My suggestion would be:
>
> Gold - "top tier" ports, as per Dave's email (eg. iArchos, iHP, X5, F/X
> etc)
> Silver - mature ports, but with some flaws (eg. iPods, maybe Sansa AMS,
> etc)
> Bronze - working ports, but with significant flaws (eg. Gigabeat S, D2,
> m:Robe 500, Ondas?).
>
> Ports that lack even basic functionality shouldn't be mentioned on the
> front page (and will be covered by the link to the TargetStatus page
> anyway).
>
> In this way the user's expectation (and level of support they can
> expect) decreases naturally in each tier.

Hi everyone,

I was about to suggest exactly the same thing after reading the
beginning of the discussion. I think this is an easier way of
classifying targets, mainly because it doesn't imply the need to define
a precise set of criteria. It also leaves room for the user to
appreciate what he wants.

What I particularly dislike in the current classification is the term
"unusable", which sounds far too negative IMO. For example the Gigabeat
S is far from unusable once you get past the hurdle of getting Rockbox
onto it.

Just my two cents.

Nicolas
Received on 2009-10-12